Syrian crisis: Who will eat crow, Putin or Obama?

The Syrian crisis has just got more intricate after Russian President Vladimir Putin has thrown the gauntlet to his American counterpart and Nobel Peace Prize winner for the year 2009. [caption id=“attachment_1093929” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin, file photo. AP image[/caption] Putin said on 6 September at a press conference after the G20 summit at St Petersburg that Russia will assist Syria in the event of an external military attack on the country and added that “we are supplying weapons and cooperating in economic fields”. Putin also went on record saying that he would reconsider the status of a suspended S-300 missile defense contract. Sample his quote:

“We have a contract for the delivery of the S-300s. We have supplied some of the components, but the delivery hasn’t been completed. We have suspended it for now. But if we see that steps are taken that violate the existing international norms; we shall think how we should act in the future, in particular regarding supplies of such sensitive weapons to certain regions of the world.”

This is a very strong position that Putin has taken. No other world leader has thus far ventured to take on the world’s sole superpower in such a manner on any raging international crisis, including Syria. (The strong anti-US statements by North Korean leaders in past few years and their threat of even attacking the US with long-range nuclear missiles need to be discounted because the North Koreans’ saber rattling is nothing but bravado.) Putin has purposely left his remark vague and not elaborated on what shape the Russian “assistance” might take should the Americans and their lackeys attack Syria, a Russian ally. But then he did not need to and, in any case, was not expected to. With this bikini-like statement (which conceals more than what it reveals), Putin has sent a clear message to the US-led international community which is itching for attacking Syria for its alleged sins of omission and commission. Putin has left it unsaid whether he would go to the extent of jumping into the Syrian war and turn into a direct war between Russia and the US, something that has never happened before in history though the two former Cold War adversaries hurtled close to it several times. But this is highly unlikely. At best, Russia can do to the US what the US did to Russia during the Soviet War in Afghanistan (24 December, 1979 – 15 February, 1989) – help the besieged government by way of military supplies. Putin’s threat of reconsidering the status of a suspended S-300 missile defence contract with Syria should be seen against this backdrop. American General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the US Congress at a hearing on Syria on 4 September (two days before Putin’s warning to the US) that the Russians may replace Syrian military assets destroyed by the US in surgical strikes. Republican Congressman George Holding put a pithy question to the American military officials: what the U.S. would do “if Russia decided to strike at us in that theater.” Holding also warned thus: “We can certainly say that Russia would have options to strike us in that theater in retaliation for us striking their ally.” Gen Dempsey, however, refused to get drawn into speculative scenarios. The world waited with bated breath for the G20 summit with the hope that some sort of consensual approach would come out of the event on the Syrian crisis. But these hopes were belied. The G20 summit proved to be yet another dialogue of the deaf and the participating leaders stuck to their stated and known positions. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh cautioned the West to go ahead with military strikes on Syria only if the United Nations gives its green signal, an impossibility considering the stiff opposition to the West’s move by two permanent members of the UN Security Council: Russia and China. But then India hardly has the capability of influencing global politics. At the G20 summit, apart from India, Russia and China, powers like Italy, Indonesia, Brazil and South Africa also opposed the Western plans for limited surgical strikes on Syria for Bashar al-Assad’s regime of killing hundreds of civilians (some say thousands) by using chemical weapons on 21 August. Even the UN Secretary General and the Pope opposed the proposed Syrian strikes. The countries which favoured the strikes on Syria were the US, Turkey, Canada, France, Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom. It is worrying that when the world wants to see its leaders acting as wise statesmen at global events like G20 summit, Putin and Obama behave like teenagers. Reports emanating from St Petersburg give a hilarious account of how the seating plans of the participating leaders were changed at the last minute. The table plan was initially based on Russian alphabets which would have made Obama and Putin sit right next to each other. But the plan was altered at the last minute and changed to English alphabets which made Obama and Putin sit far away from one another. With teenage behaviour like this, can anyone expect a sane approach from world leaders on burning problems of the globe? The Syrian conundrum has huge implications for the global economy as it will plunge the world into yet another recession. The impact on India will be even harsher. Petrol will inevitably cross the hundred rupee mark in India within weeks, should the US-led international community attack Syria. Putin’s audacious warning to the US has come like a whiff of fresh air for India and the world. It is time that China too makes similar noises. It is extremely unlikely that the US and company will be deterred by Putin’s warning. Who will eat crow on the Syrian issue: Putin or Obama? Well, the world dynamics will change if China too were to come up with similar strong remarks and challenge the Americans. The writer is a Firstpost columnist and a strategic analyst. His Twitter handle is @Kishkindha.